SURINDER KUMAR BOVEJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WELTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee in this case was assessed to wealth tax by the Wealth Tax Officer (herein after referred as the `WTO'). The assessee was holder of a ticket of Delhi Stock Exchange. The WTO valued the tickets at Rs.25 lakhs for the year 1991-92 and Rs.40 lakhs for the year 1992-93. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and vide an order dated 28.3.2000, the appeal was partly allowed. WTO was directed to adopt valuation of Rs.15 lakhs for the assessment year 1991-92 and Rs.20 lakhs for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee felt contended with the relief granted and did not prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue, however, preferred an appeal against the order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23.9.2004 The Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the order of CIT regarding valuation of the ticket was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal was of the opinion that value of the ticket could not be more than the amount, for which ticket was purchased as the ticket was non- transferable initially. Since the assessee had not preferred an appeal against the order, the order of CWT (A) regarding valuation of ticket was upheld. The appeal of Revenue was dismissed.

(2.) After the order of Tribunal containing above observation, the assessee/ appellant preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the CWT (A) dated 28.3.2000 and 8.05.2003. Out of the said two appeals, one was delayed by four years and 245 days and other was delayed by one year and 154 days. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case on ground of limitation holding that the decision of the CWT (A) has become final and it would be against the spirit of order of the Tribunal to grant relief to the assessee. It was observed that proceedings before the Tribunal were continuation of the assessment proceedings and the Tribunal merely decides dispute between the parties. Even if interpretation of law is involved, it cannot be said that the Tribunal lays down the law. So it would not be correct to say that the tax liability with which the assessee got burdened was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment reported as 266 (1992) STC Vol 87 Baroda Rayon Corp Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax. In this judgment Gujarat High Court has held that : -

(3.) The counsel for appellant has argued that in view of the observation made by Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of Revenue, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned. It was submitted that appellant did not prefer appeal against the order initially as he was not aware of the legal position. After the orders of Tribunal he became aware of the legal position and therefore, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay.